PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

148A(a) of\nthe Act. Therefore, in our considered view no prejudice is being caused to the\nassessee for not providing the clear seven days as required under section\n148(b) of the Act, to invalidate the proceedings. The cases relied on the\nLd.AR is of no help to the assessee since the facts are distinguishable that in\nthose cases

PANDALAPAKA PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,EAST GODAVARI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-1, KAKINADA

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.437 & 438/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21) Pandalapaka Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Income Tax Office Co-Op Credit Society Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Deepthi Towers 5-28/1, Pandalapaka Main Road, Kakinada – 533001 Biccavole Mandal – 533345 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabap2382G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

148A(a) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered view no prejudice is being caused to the assessee for not providing the clear seven days as required under section 148(b) of the Act, to invalidate the proceedings. The cases relied on the Ld.AR is of no help to the assessee since the facts are distinguishable that in those cases

PADARTHI VENKATA SIVANAGENDRA PRASADA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TENALI

delay due to severe back pain. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147, issuing a notice under section 148, which was later deemed a show-cause notice under section 148A(b). The assessee filed a return, but the AO added Rs. 1,12,13,500 as unexplained money under section 69A.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned

GANDEM NAGESWARA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAKAPALLE

148A(b) is invalid inasmuch as the Assessing Officer gave only 06 days of time to the appellant, which is less than the stipulated period of 07 clear days and consequently the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed as void-ab-initio. 2. The notice issued U/s. 148 of the Act on 16/03/2023 by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer

NANDYALA NAGA VENKATA RAJU,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TANAKU

148A(b)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating a specific ground challenging the validity of the notice under section 148 of the Act, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned

MEKA VIRAJ GOPAL APPARAO,NUZVID vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.232/Viz./2025 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Meka Viraj Gopal Apparao, Kotapadu Estate, Nuzvid The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mandal, Krishna Ward-3(1), District. Vijayawada – 520 002. Pin – 521 201. Pan Bgapm1891G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mv Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 23.01.2026 आदेश/Order

condone the delay of 107 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned C.I.T (Appeals) u/s 250 of the IT Act is bad in law as well as facts

GULIPALLI SATISH,BOBBILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 413/Viz/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Gulipalli Satish, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bobbili. Ward-1, Pan: Cbnpg3883K Vizianagaram. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14/08/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

section 148A(d) of the Act. Thereafter, notice U/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 07/11/2023 calling for the details. However, the assessee has not submitted any details. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice U/s. 144 of the Act on 19/12/2023, however, the assessee did not submit any details. Further, another show cause notice

BABU RAO SAHUKARI,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.327/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Babu Rao Sahukari Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(5) 24-107-54/1 Visakhapatnam – 530020 C/O. Srikar Sai Medical Agencies Andhra Pradesh Gonthivanipalem Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 530026 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Efnps1341E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Muralidhar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

condonation of the delay by the assessee. Assessee also continuously failed to respond to any of the notices of the Revenue Authorities and has not raised any objections to the show-cause notice issued under section 148A

MAHANKALI JYOTHI,DUBLIN, USA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION WARD, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

condone the delay of 149 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed the return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 27/03/2018 admitting a total income of Rs.6

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

condoned the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal for AY 2015-16 due to sufficient and reasonable cause. The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2015-16 were without jurisdiction as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period. For AY 2018-19, the appeals related to quantum additions and penalty were

MUPPALLA PADMAVATHI,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 396/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Muppalla Padmavathi V. Income Tax Officer - Ward – 2(1) D.No. 8-188 Topu Kornepadu Guntur Medical College Road Vatticherukuru Mandal Guntur – 522004 Andhra Pradesh Guntur - 522017 [Pan:Foipm1273L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

condone Page No. 2 Muppalla Padmavathi the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in the following paragraphs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee is an individual and has not filed the Return of Income for the A.Y.2019-20. The case of the assessee is flagged

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

148A(b) of the Act calling upon the assessee to place on record documentary evidence to support his claim for multi- facet deductions viz., (i) Loss on house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction

GUNTUPALLI NAGESWARA RAO,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

148A(b) of the Act calling upon the assessee to place on record documentary evidence to support his claim for multi- facet deductions viz., (i) Loss on house property: Rs. 2,00,000/-; (ii) Deduction under section 80C: Rs. 1,50,000/-; (iii) deduction under section 80CCD(1B): Rs.50,000/-; (iv) deduction under section 80CCD(2): Rs.50,000/- (v) deduction

MANDALA SRIRAMACHANDRA MURTHY,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), dated 27.03.2024 for the AY 2015-16. 2 Mandala Sriramachandra Murthy 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, based on receipt of specific information which was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through Insight Portal under NMS cases, it was noticed

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash

SHAIK SAIDA,NUZVID vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: the Tribunal and the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons, similar to the three appeals, which are extracted herein below:

condone the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. As per the information available with the Department, the Ld. AO noticed that the assessee has deposited cash

SUNKARA KOTIPALLI NAIDU ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.299/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sunkara Kotipalli Naidu V. Income Tax Officer –Ward- Chettupalli Village (International Taxation) Narsipatnam Mandal Income Tax Office Visakhapatnam Infinity Towers Andhra Pradesh – 531116 Sankaramatam Road Visakhapatnam [Pan: Dzdps4163R] Andhra Pradesh,530016 (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

148A(d) of the Act was passed on 28.03.2023 with the prior approval of the competent authority considering it as fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter notice under section 148 was issued on 29.03.2023 and served on the assessee. In response to show-cause notice dated 20.09.2023 assessee filed his return of income

RAVI PRASAD BOYAPATI,KRISHNA DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

148A(b) of the Act. As the assessee failed to come forth with any explanation, therefore, the AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 08-04-2022. 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to put forth an explanation as regards the cash deposits made during the subject year